The Observance of Impoliteness Found in the Utterances Produced by the Characters of Paranorman Movie
1Khristiandie Hartanto, 2Katharina Rustipa*, and 3Yulistiyanti
1,2,3Universitas Stikubank (UNISBANK) Semarang, Indonesia
1khristiandie.h@gmail.com
2katrin@edu.unisbank.ac.id
3yulistiyanti@edu.unisbank.ac.id (*corresponding author)
Article History: Submitted March 23rd, 2022; Accepted December 16th, 2022; Published December 28th, 2022
Abstract. This study aimed at finding out the impoliteness strategy produced by the characters in Paranorman movie. Employing a pragmatic analytical framework, this study is qualitative. The data were utterances produced by the characters in Paranorman movie, whereas the contexts were dialogues. The research used Paranorman movie script and movie as sources. The researcher was the primary instrument, with the datasheet as a secondary. The researcher collected data by analyzing documents by note-taking. The data were analyzed using a reference (pragmatic inference). The research findings reveal the following. First, the characters in Paranorman use four kinds of impoliteness strategies. They are bald on record, positive, negative, and sarcastic. Second, each impoliteness strategy has its own representation. Direct, clear, and unambiguous statements are used to express impoliteness. Positive impoliteness occurs as disassociating from others, calling the other names, and using taboo words. Negative impoliteness occurs as condescending, scorning, or ridiculing the other. Sarcasm or mock politeness is only performed by using insincere politeness. This is the most representation. Third, the movie shows three responses, namely no response, accepting, and countering the face attack. Countering a face attack has two parts, namely offensive and defensive.
Keywords: impoliteness strategy, negative impoliteness, positive impoliteness
Abstrak. Penelitian ini bertujuan menemukan strategi ketidaksopanan yang diucapkan oleh para tokoh di film Paranorman. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan orientasi pragmatic analytical framework. Data penelitian berupa ujaran yang diucapkan oleh para tokoh pada film Paranorman, sementara konteksnya adalah dialog. Sumber data adalah film Paranorman dan skripnya. Peneliti bertindak sebagai instrument utama, sedangkan lembar pencatat sebagai instrumen sekunder. Peneliti mengumpulkan data melalui analisis dokumen dengan cara note-taking. Data dianalisis menggunakan pragmatic inference. Berikut adalah temuan penelitian. Pertama, tokoh pada film Paranorman menggunakan empat macam strategi ketidaksopanan. Strategi tersebut adalah bald on record, positive, negative, dan sarcasm. Kedua, setiap strategi memiliki representasinya sendiri.
Pernyataan langsung, jelas, dan tidak ambigu dipakai untuk mengekspresikan ketidaksopanan.
Positive impoliteness terjadi saat menjauhkan hubungan dengan yang lain, dengan cara calling the other names, dan using of taboo words. Negative impoliteness terjadi saat merendahkan orang lain dengan scorning atau ridiculing orang lain. Sarcasm atau mock politeness dilakukan hanya dengan menggunakan insincere politeness. Ketiga, data menunjukan adanya tiga respons terhadap ketidaksopanan, yaitu no response, accepting, dan countering the face attack. Countering a face attack ada dua macam, yaitu offensive dan defensive.
Kata kunci: strategi ketidaksopanan, ketidaksopanan negatif, ketidaksopanan positif
INTRODUCTION
Politeness and impoliteness are learned in the discipline of pragmatics. Every individual has a public face or a public self-image that they project to the world. The term ‘face’ refers to the notion such as reputation, prestige, and self-esteem. The idiom ‘losing face’ means that one’s public image suffers some damage (J. Culpeper, 2011). They hope that the appearance of their features would be respected by others. They must pay close attention to their manners if they want to be accepted by the community in which they live, therefore; they must demonstrate their politeness to those in their immediate vicinity. The opposite is also true. Bullying, threatening, and mocking are common occurrences in the community despite the fact that individuals are aware that these activities are deemed unpleasant. At this point, kids employ language methods that can be used to attack or threaten the faces of others. Impolite ways (such as using taboo words, inappropriate identity markers, sarcasm) really hurt others (Berk, 2015). Therefore, impoliteness is regarded as an unacceptable conduct in communication since it has the potential to create social conflict.
Due to the fact that politeness is the topic of most pragmatic research (Ryabova, 2015)(Mahmud, 2019)(Xafizovna, 2022), and only a few studies focusing on impoliteness while aspecs of politeness and impoliteness should be thoroughly studied (Locher & Bousfield, 2008)(Kecskes, 2017)(Kecskes, 2015). Therefore, the researchers attempt to explore the impoliteness strategies.
Indeed, it is critical to not just study civility but also impoliteness in order to better understand the world around us. By studying impoliteness, people can have a better understanding of bad manners and impolite language, allowing them to manage their own behavior when talking to others.
A previous study explored the impoliteness strategies employed by internet users (Muhamadiyev, 2020). A study investigated the use of impoliteness strategies of gender differences (Mirhosseini et al., 2017). A survey attempted to reveal the problems of impoliteness (Dynel, 2015). The research explored verbal threats as impoliteness in interaction (Limberg, 2009). A study searched the impoliteness produced in Donald 'Trump's speech (Bustan & Alakrash, 2020). A research studied the impoliteness in Facebook comments (Hammod & Abdul-Rassul, 2017). A study explored impoliteness in children talks (Cashman, 2006). The research investigated polite and impoliteness strategies by lawyers (Kuntsi, 2012).
Impolite behavior can be observed in real life, films, and television shows. Paranorman movie is one of the films that depict disrespectful behavior. As a result of the other characters' disrespectful behavior, the main character finds himself on the receiving end of their actions. The movie is about a young child named Norman, who possesses a sixth sense of perception. He possesses the power to communicate with the dead. Nevertheless, those in his immediate vicinity, including his relatives, do not trust him, and they frequently insult him. Because of this, he strives to persuade others to trust his capabilities.
For a variety of reasons, Paranorman movie is an ideal subject for this study. First and foremost, we are intrigued by the Norman's sixth sense and his manner to persuade others of his abilities. For the second, other characters in Paranorman movie have the opportunity to be disrespectful to the main character since they do not trust the main character's abilities. The use of disrespectful utterances is a remarkable aspect of the story that deserves to be explored more in this study. Third, the title of Paranorman movie provokes the researcher's interest. Due to the name of the main character is Norman, this film is entitled Paranorman rather than using the vocabulary of Paranormal to describe what is going on in the story. He possesses supernatural abilities, including the ability to converse with the dead, which he uses to his advantage. This movie's title is a spin on
the phrase “paranormal,” which means “out of the ordinary.” For drawing people's attention to the movie, the title of Paranorman must be catchy. Therefore, the writers propose three research objectives: (1) to find out the types of impoliteness strategies directed at the main character, (2) to explain how the impoliteness strategies are directed at the main character, (3) to find out the main character's response to the impoliteness strategies.
Impoliteness Strategy
It is believed that impoliteness is a parasite that feeds on politeness. Linguists did not focus on impoliteness research until recently, despite the fact that their works did so implicitly. Some scholars pioneered to create the term “impoliteness strategy” (Pramujiono, 2012). Craig, as reported by Culpeper (J. Culpeper, 1996), says: “If politeness theory is to maintain analytical consistency, it must consider confrontational techniques. Furthermore, it is obvious that impoliteness plays a major, not minor, role in some situations “. Many researchers are beginning to consider impoliteness research as a field of study in pragmatics. According to Jonathan Culpeper (B. J.
Culpeper, 2012), Locher and Bousfield argue in a recent collection of impoliteness research that there is no specific concept of impoliteness that linguists agree on.
Some definitions of impoliteness are as follows (Rahardi, 2013): (a) Locher and Bousfield state that
“impoliteness is behaviour that is face-aggravating in a particular context”. (b) “Impoliteness happens when the expression used is not conventionalized relative to the context of occurrence; it threatens the addressee's face... but the hearer attributes no face-threatening purpose to the speaker,”
Terkourafi explains. (c) Culpeper states “ It is communicative behavior intended to cause the face- loss of a target or seen to be so by the target.” Impoliteness, he added, as “the use of strategies that are intended to have the opposite impact of social disruption.”
As a result, it is an interaction style that seeks to harm the addressee's face, causing social disruption. From the definitions above, Culpeper has the most comprehensive explanation because he mentions impoliteness itself and its social consequences in his description. According to Pramujiono (Pramujiono, 2012) impoliteness is a tactic for threatening face. Culpeper's (B. J.
Culpeper, 2012), states that impoliteness is “a new subject of study, and any new discipline is prone to insecurity.”
In addition, types of impoliteness strategies according to Culpeper (Culpeper, 1996) are as follows.
(1) Bald on Record Impoliteness. (2) Positive Impoliteness. (3) Negative Impoliteness. A few realizations of negative impoliteness can occur, such as Condescending, Scorning or Ridiculing, Associating the other with a negative aspect explicitly, Invading the 'Other's Space, Sarcasm or Mock Politeness, and Withhold Politeness.
Responses to Impoliteness
Impoliteness is something that happens to everyone at some point in their lives, and it is especially prevalent in communication situations. When a speaker speaks in an unfriendly manner to the listener, the addressee has several options to choose from. According to Culpeper et al. (Culpeper et al., 2003), the addressee has the option of accepting it, countering it, or responding with silence.
Here are some responses (1) Accepting the Face Attack. It is a strategy when the addressee accepts the speaker's words, as stated by Bousfield (Bousfield, 2008). The addressee expresses agreement with the speaker's point of view by nodding his or her head. (2) Countering the Face Attack. It is
possible to counter a face attack when the addressee responds to one that the speaker has launched.
(3) Offensive Countering. He or she can choose to respond to an impoliteness approach by using offensive strategy, or he or she can respond with a face attack by utilizing a defensive strategy. The addressee employs offensive countering by responding to the face attack with a face attack of his or her own (Bousfield, 2008) (Limberg, 2008). (4) Defensive Countering. To deal with impoliteness technique, the addressee has another option: he or she might oppose the face attack by employing a defensive approach. According to Bousfield (Bousfield, 2008), defensive countering is defined as the act of the addressee defending his or her own face. A face attack victim will employ this kind by responding to or explaining something in order to defend oneself when confronted with a face attack. (5) No Response. Towards the strategy of impoliteness, the addressee cannot respond in any way. By being silent, the addressee can indicate that he or she has no response (Bousfield, 2008).
Several factors influence the decision of whether or not to answer, including the addressee's refusal to speak, the fact that he or she does not have the opportunity to speak, and whether or not the addressee understands the content of the speaker's speech.
METHOD
This research is descriptive qualitative in nature, describing the phenomena of impoliteness in Paranorman movie. The data are analyzed using impoliteness strategies based on Culpeper’s model, employing taxonomy of impoliteness strategies (J. Culpeper, 2016). The research data are the texts in the script of Paranorman movie that cover words, phrases, clauses, sentences, dialogues, and narrations. While, the steps of collecting data are: (1) watching the movie, (2) taking notes of the 'character's utterances from the conversation or dialogue of the movie which contains impoliteness aspects, and (3) recording the data into data sheet. Afterwards, the researchers analyzed the data by (1) classifying, (2) interpreting, (3) consulting to peers and experts, and (4) drawing conclusion.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The total of impoliteness strategy types that occurred in the movie can be served in the table below.
Table 1 Percentage of Impoliteness Strategy addressed to Norman in Paranorman Movie
Types Total Percentage
Bald on record 35 67.3
Positive impoliteness 4 7.7
Negative impoliteness
8 15.4
Sarcasm or mock politeness
5 9.6
Withhold politeness 52 100
Table 1 shows that all impoliteness strategies occurred 52 times in total during the movie. Bald on record dominates the occurrences, which is shown 35 occurrences in total or 67.3%. The second amount of the total occurrence of impoliteness strategy is negative impoliteness, which shows eight occurrences or 15.4%. Meanwhile, sarcasm or mock politeness takes the third position of the most occurred in the movie, that is five times or 9.6% in the movie. The forth type is positive
impoliteness which shows four times of occurrences in the movie or 7.7%. The last is withhold politeness that has nothing occurred during the movie.
Types and Representations of Impoliteness Strategy Addressed to the Main Character
Four types of impoliteness strategies addressed to the main character, Norman, are found, namely bald on record, positive, negative impoliteness, and sarcasm or mock politeness. Bald on record impoliteness is realized by the use of direct, clear, and unambiguous statements. Positive impoliteness is also manifested in the dissociation from the other, the calling of names, and the use of taboo words. Negative impoliteness is also communicated in the form of condescension, scorn, or ridicule, as well as overtly associating the other with a negative aspect. Finally, sarcasm or mock politeness is realized by using insincere politeness.
1. Bald on record impoliteness
When the addressee's face is at stake, the speaker employs bald on record impoliteness; the speaker employs this approach to attack the addressee's face in a direct, obvious, unambiguous, and brief manner (Culpeper, 1996: 356).
The dialogue between Norman and Prenderghast ghost (Norman's uncle) is one of example of bald on record impoliteness. The following discussion takes place while Norman is in the school's restroom, where his uncle's ghost appears out of nowhere. His uncle gives him orders immediately.
Prenderghast ghost: “Get the book and read from it! Before the sun sets tonight”!” Since he attacks Norman's face directly with demanding sentences, the Prenderghast ghost uses bald on record impoliteness. “Get the book and read from it!” he tells Norman. Before the sun sets tonight”!”
Norman receives a clear order from Prenderghast's ghost to take the book and read it before the sun sets in order to break the witch's curse. Prenderghast's ghost's negative attitude toward Norman is conveyed by the rising tone in ordering Norman. Norman is forced to follow his orders.
Furthermore, Prenderghast's ghost emphasizes his relative power as Norman's uncle in order to command him. The ghost of Prenderghast prefers to continue his power by attacking Norman's face.
In the movie, when the other characters want to say anything that directly and obviously attacks Norman's face, they employ the impoliteness strategy of bald on record impoliteness. They want to use face-to-face interaction to show their doubt in Norman's sixth sense. Norman can easily understand the meaning of impolite utterances when he employs this type of impoliteness strategy.
Excerpt 1
Prenderghast ghost : “Get the book and read from it! Before the sun sets tonight!”
Norman : “But this is crazy!”
(Movie script)
2. Positive impoliteness
Positive impoliteness, according to Culpeper (Culpeper, 1996), is a method for attacking the recipient's positive face. Dissociating from others, calling others names, using taboo words, and using inappropriate identity markers are four representations of impoliteness strategy. Meanwhile, in Paranorman movie, there are three representations of positive impoliteness. Disassociating from
others, calling others names, and using taboo words are examples of representations. The following are examples of positive impoliteness with its representation in the movie.
a. Disassociating from the Other
The dialogue between Courtney and Norman is one of the examples of disassociating from the other. When they are at the archives searching for the book that will break the witch's curse, they have a conversation. In “Why 'd'you have to go and get everyone involved in all your weird stuff?!”
Courtney acts in positive impoliteness since she does not want to be entangled in Norman's bizarre activities in searching for a book that will end the witch's curse. Norman is not treated as if he were a normal member of her company. She separates herself from Norman, who wants her to find the book. She calls Norman “weird stuff” in an impolite manner, implying that his act of breaking the witch's curse cannot be accepted in her opinion. Courtney considers his behavior to be abnormal.
She also attacks Norman's face in an attempt to get him to quit his weird behavior.
Excerpt 2
Courtney : “Why 'd'you have to go and get everyone involved in all your weird stuff?!”
Norman : “Well, you 'weren't supposed to follow me, were you”?” (Movie script)
b. Calling Other Names
A kid's utterance below is an example of calling others names. The dialogue occurs in the context of a large group of children who are oddly watching Norman as he comes along the school corridor.
Norman is mocked by one of the kids in front of the other kids,”Look! 'It's AbNorman!” The kid's expression is harsh, and he taunts Norman in an impolite manner. When the kid does not treat Norman as a normal person, he or she engages in positive impoliteness. Furthermore, Norman's schoolmate refuses to play with him. The kid even uses the word 'AbNorman' to refer to Norman's other names. This word is classified as a derogative term. It's a wordplay on the word abnormal; the kid changes the word normal to 'norman' as Norman's name. According to the kid, Norman is a weird boy because he frequently acts strangely with his sixth sense.
Excerpt 3:
KID :”Look! 'It's AbNorman!”
Norman : (Silent) (Movie script)
c. Using Taboo Words
Alvin's next act of positive impoliteness is directed toward Norman. They're having a talk in the school corridor. Alvin bullies norman at school. As in the following example, he frequently abuses Norman's sixth sense. Since Alvin does not accept Norman as a gang member or group at school, he uses positive impoliteness. Norman is not one that Alvin wants to be friends with. Because of Norman's ability, he frequently bullies him. To discredit Norman's good name, he even employs the taboo words “ghost jerk” in his utterance. Alvin's remark to Norman is unquestionably impolite.
The term 'ghost jerk' is a harsh or vulgar term that refers to a foolish person. Alvin wants to mock Norman by calling him a moron who can see and communicate with ghosts.
Excerpt 4:
Alvin :”Hey, ghost jerk! You know what?”
Norman :”What do you want, Alvin?”
(Movie script)
3. Negative Impoliteness
Negative impoliteness, according to Culpeper (J. Culpeper, 1996), is a method used to target the recipient's negative face. Here are the negative politeness found.
a. Condescending, Scorning, or Ridiculing
In the dialogue between Sandra and his son, Norman, one of the examples of negative impoliteness and its representation may be noticed. Sandra and Norman had a disagreement over Norman's ability to communicate with his dead grandmother. Sandra is skeptical of Norman's claim to be able to communicate with his dead grandmother.
Sandra attacks Norman's negative face since she doubts Norman's sixth sense. Meanwhile, Norman's negative face here is that he wants the others to believe in his sixth sense when he presents it to them. Sandra also degrades Norman by emphasizing her relative power as Norman's mother. Norman's mother even advises him to go on and accept his grandmother's loss because she is now in a better place (in heaven).
Excerpt 5:
Sandra Babcock :”Norman, I know you and Grandma were very close, but we all have to move on. 'Grandma's in a better place now.”
Norman :”No 'she's not, she's she's in the living room.”
(Movie script)
b. Associating the Other with Explicit Negative Aspect
When Norman's sister, Courtney, accuses Norman of sneaking around in her personal belongings, the following conversation occurs. Norman, on the other hand, does not sneak around in Courtney's personal belongings. Courtney says, “You better not be sneaking out. You little weirdo!” Since she does not even respect or believe in Norman's sixth sense, Courtney behaves in negative impoliteness. She is doubtful of Norman's wish to reveal his sixth sense to others. Norman, on the other hand, is mocked by her, who says, “You little weirdo!” By employing the pronoun 'You,' Courtney explicitly identifies Norman with a negative aspect. She also uses the phrase 'little weirdo' as a negative aspect, which is meant to be insulting to Norman. The negative aspect of Norman as a kid is that he is abnormal or weird since he has sixth sense ability.
Furthermore, because they have relative power as Norman's relatives, elder characters in the film, such as Perry, Sandra, Mr. Prenderghast, and Courtney, frequently condescend Norman. As a result,
they feel more powerful and have the authority to give Norman, who is still a kid, orders or advice.
Furthermore, when the pronoun 'you' is followed by a negative aspect, such as 'little weirdo,' it is regarded as impolite. Norman wishes the other characters in this movie to acknowledge his sixth sense. Furthermore, when Norman wishes to show or convey his abilities to the other characters, they insult him. They make fun of Norman to express their mistrust in his ability.
Excerpt 6:
Courtney : “You better not be sneaking out. You little weirdo!”
Norman : (Silent) (Movie script)
4. Sarcasm or Mock Politeness
Sarcasm is a face-threatening conduct that is perpetrated by employing an impoliteness strategy (J.
Culpeper, 1996). Sarcasm or mock politeness is manifested through the use of insincere politeness.
The interaction between Alvin and Norman is an example of sarcasm or mock politeness. Norman is about to put his bag in the locker when Alvin appears. Norman is sarcastically insulted by Alvin's request to speak with a dead fly. Since he insincerely tells Norman to communicate to the dead fly, Alvin's words are regarded as sarcasm or mock politeness. Norman is asked by Alvin to communicate with the dead fly that he had swatted flat with his hand. When Alvin says “Talk to that!” He only wants to insult Norman by talking with the dead fly like Norman talks with the dead humans.
Excerpt 7:
Alvin (cont'd.) : “Talk to that.”
Norman : “Flies 'don't talk.”
(Movie script)
The Main Character's Responses to Impoliteness Strategies
Accepting the face attack, countering the face attack, and making no response are all examples of impoliteness strategy responses in the movie.
1. Accepting the Face Attack
Bousfield (Bousfield, 2008) explains that the addressee approves the speaker's face attack when he or she agrees with the speaker's impoliteness strategy utterances. Accepting the face attack, on the other hand, becomes the lowest response employed by Norman, the main character in Paranorman movie. The following are some examples.
Norman's interaction with his uncle ghost, Mr. Prenderghast, serves as an example of accepting the attack on the face. Norman's uncle forces Norman to read the book that will help him break the witch's curse. This dialogue takes place in the school's restroom. In Norman: “What book?”
Norman implicitly accepts his uncle's order in the dialogue above because he does not directly mention 'yes' to his uncle. He conveys his agreement by asking his uncle, “What book?” It implies that Norman will seek out the book that will enable him to break the witch's curse. Considering
Norman is afraid of his uncle, he accepts his uncle's face attack. He is afraid that if he does not obey his uncle's orders, he would be hurt. Furthermore, Norman does not want to cause his uncle's face- threatening act. Norman uses his uncle ghost as the next example of accepting the face attack.
Norman is forced to promise to read the book that would break the witch's curse by Prenderghast's ghost. Norman responses the face attack from the Prenderghast ghost. “OK, okay, I promise...” he says to his uncle. He complies with his uncle's request to make a promise to him. He promises to his uncle that he will read the book that would end the witch's curse. Norman, on the other hand, does not defend himself against his uncle's face attack because he is frightened of his uncle's threat. He is afraid that if he does not obey his uncle's orders, he would be hurt. Furthermore, he prefers to save his face rather than causing the face-threatening act by accepting the face attack.
This response option was also infrequently used by Norman. He responses the face attack from the other characters for a reasons, including fear of the other characters, a desire protect his image in front of other characters, and a desire to cause the face attack.
Excerpt 8:
Prenderghast ghost : “I mean promise”!”
Norman : “Okay, okay, I promise.”
(Movie script)
2. Countering the Face Attack
Offensive countering and defensive countering are the two subcategories of countering a face attack (Bousfield, 2008). Norman's responses to the impoliteness strategies used by the other characters in Paranorman movie are all subcategories of countering the face attack; offensive countering and defensive countering.
a. Offensive Countering
The offensive countering is mostly used by the main character. Some examples are presented.
Mitch assists Norman in searching the archives for the book that will break the witch's curse. He knows, however, that it is a time - wasting and foolish task. Mitch will never be able to find the book because there are so many in the archives. Norman says “If 'I'd known there was so much reading involved, I would have brought a completely different group of people who hate me.” To oppose Mitch, Norman attempts to offend him. He also responds to Mitch's face attack with a face attack. He offends Mitch by stating that if he knows there are so many books to read, he will bring different groups of citizens who dislike him. It suggests that Norman is upset with Mitch, Alvin, and Courtney for assisting him in finding the book, yet they continue to use an impoliteness strategy when assisting him. They are not honest in their assistance to Norman like in the following dialogue, as Courtney and Norman go to the archives to look for the book that can break the witch's curse. Courtney claims that his brother's sixth sense scares her. Furthermore, she has had enough of Norman's weird behavior. Norman says “You never listen! No one ever listens! I'm scared too, but I've still gotta do this.”
Using his words, Norman offends Courtney by implementing a verbal attack against her face. “You never listen! No one ever listens!” he exclaims to his sister. He expresses his displeasure at his
sister's statement in an impolite way. When she insults Norman's sixth sense, Norman shows his rage by declaring that his sister does not really care about him. Norman tries to offend his sister because he does not want her to doubt his ability. He wants her to trust him and believe in his ability. Norman also frequently employs the offensive countering as a response. He offends the other characters by returning the face attack with a face attack of his own. Since he does not like to appear as a loser in front of the other characters, Norman frequently employs this response.
Excerpt 9:
Mitch : “I thought I was driving the van. No one told me I was gonna have to do this other dumb stuff.”
Norman : “If 'I'd known there was so much reading involved, I would have brought a completely different group of people who hate me.”
(Movie script)
Excerpt 10:
Courtney :”We tried and look what happened! 'I'm scared, Norman, and I 'can't listen to this anymore.”
Norman :“You never listen! No one ever listens! 'I'm scared too, but 'I've still gotta do this.”
(Movie script)
b. Defensive Countering
According to Bousfield (Bousfield, 2008), defensive countering refers to the addressee defending his or her own face. The dialogue between Courtney and Norman is an example of defensive countering. Courtney blames Norman for knowing her secret by looking through her personal belongings. On the other hand, Norman is informed of her secret of hiding images of a boy without a shirt in her underwear drawer by his grandmother ghost. He never sneaks around for his sister's personal belongings. Norman says “No I haven't! Grandma told me!” Norman responds to his sister's accusation that he has sneaked about her personal belongings by responding, “No, I haven't!” “Grandma informed me!” Norman strongly refutes his sister's claim in this case. He protects himself by saying that he would not go through her personal belongings, but he does know her secret from his grandmother's ghost. He tries to defend himself in order to protect his face in front of his sister. He does not want his sister to think of him as a liar who likes to sneak about her personal belongings.
Norman also defends himself against the other characters' face attacks by clarifying the situation or answering their questions. For example, when Norman's uncle asks him whether he knows anything about the witch's curse, he responds truthfully that he does not. Norman would rather say the truth to save face in front of his uncle. Furthermore, when defending himself, he does not respond to the other characters' face attacks with a face attack of his own. Furthermore, he chooses this response because he wants to protect his face rather than make the others' face-threatening behavior worse.
Excerpt 11:
Courtney : “I knew it! 'You've been sneaking around in my personal stuff”!”
Norman : “No I haven't! Grandma told me!”
(Movie script)
3. No Response
By being silent, the addressee can give no response (Bousfield, 2008). Norman, the main character in Paranorman movie, chooses to remain silent as a type of non-response. Meanwhile, there are a lot of reasons why people choose not to respond. Mr. Prenderghast appears out of nowhere and requests Norman's assistance in breaking the witch's curse. There is a rumor concerning the witch's curse in Norman's city. Norman hears from his uncle that the witch's curse is true. It is not only local folklore in their town. Norman knows from Mr. Prenderghast that the witch's curse is real, and Norman is the only one who can break it. Norman is also threatened by his uncle, who claims that the fate of everyone is in his hands. Norman remains silent in answer to his uncle since he does not understand what his uncle is saying. He has never heard of the witch's curse and believes that he is merely a child incapable of breaking it. Furthermore, Norman chooses to remain silent since he is afraid of his uncle's threatening words.
Excerpt 12:
Mr. Prenderghast : “There's something you really need to know! This is the most important thing you will ever hear! The fate of everyone depends on it! Now listen close…”
“The witch's curse is real, and you're the one who has to stop it!”
Norman : (Silent)
(Movie script)
Actually, there are several reasons why Norman decided to remain silent since he is the target of the other characters' face attack. Norman is afraid of the threat posed by the other characters, he does not really know the topic of the conversation, and he does not have to cause the face-threatening act. Furthermore, Norman is frequently faced with a lot of impolite behaviors from other characters that employ various impoliteness strategies. Although Norman wants the others to trust in his sixth sense, the other characters frequently employ impolite behaviors to attack Norman's negative face.
On the other hand, Norman has a habit of proving the validity of his sixth sense. By refuting the others' face attack; he aims to prove that he does not lie and that he has a robust or strong conviction character. Norman frequently argues with other characters who do not trust in Norman's sixth sense by defending with a face attack of his own. When others embarrassed him, he would respond with a straight response to their face attack. On the other hand, Norman tends to respond to the face attack indirectly if the impolite behaviors are not presented directly. Norman routinely offends characters that are the same age as him. On the other hand, he frequently remains silent or defends himself when other characters who are older than him insult him.
In other words, when people are mocked by other people and their face is at threat, they would respond by countering the other person's face attack in a communication setting. It is done in order to defend their opinion in front of the other people involved. Furthermore, people would respond to other people's face attacks with a comparable face attack. Furthermore, people are more likely to counter others of the same age rather than those who are older. People in various cultures
understand the importance of being polite to those who are older than them. As a result, cultures also define polite and impolite behavior. It is determined whether an act is impolite or polite based on the culture of the person performing it.
CONCLUSION
There are only four impoliteness strategies that appear such as bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, and sarcasm or mock impoliteness. The reason of impolite behavior to Norman is they want to express their feelings to Norman directly. Inappropriate identity markers are not used because they are close to Norman. Therefore, they can call Norman's nickname. The other characters do not use invading their space. So they can ask Norman about something personal or intimate. The other characters never use silence because they want to express themselves directly. However, Norman only responds with three responses, no response and two countering acts, offensive and defensive. Norman wants others to believe in his sixth sense. In the movie, accepting the face attack is considered impolite because admitting that his sixth sense is fictitious would be considered weak.
REFERENCES
Berk, L. (2015). Child development. Pearson Higher Education AU.
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction - by Derek Bousfield. In John Benjamins Publishing Company. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2008.01411_9.x
Bustan, E., & Alakrash, H. M. (2020). An analysis of impoliteness strategies performed by Donald Trump tweets addressıng the middle east countries. Global Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 1, 66–74.
Cashman, H. R. (2006). Impoliteness in children’s interactions in a Spanish/English bilingual community of practice.
Culpeper, B. J. (2012). SIL Electronic Book Reviews 2012-003 Impoliteness : Using language to cause offence.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3
Culpeper, J. (2011). 13. Politeness and impoliteness. Pragmatics of Society, 5, 393.
Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness strategies. Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, 421–445.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1545–1579.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2
Dynel, M. (2015). The landscape of impoliteness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2),
329–354.
Hammod, N. M., & Abdul-Rassul, A. (2017). Impoliteness strategies in English and Arabic Facebook comments. International Journal of Linguistics, 9(5), 97–112.
Kecskes, I. (2015). Intercultural impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 43–47.
Kecskes, I. (2017). Context-dependency and impoliteness in intercultural communication. Journal of Politeness Research, 13(1), 7–31.
Kuntsi, P. M. (2012). Politeness and impoliteness strategies used by lawyers in the” Dover Trial”:
a case study. Itä-Suomen yliopisto.
Limberg, H. (2008). Threats in conflict talk: Impoliteness and manipulation. Language Power and Social Process, 21, 155.
Limberg, H. (2009). Impoliteness and threat responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(7), 1376–1394.
Locher, M. A., & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language (Issue 21). Mouton de Gruyter.
Mahmud, M. (2019). The use of politeness strategies in the classroom context by English university students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 597–606.
Mirhosseini, M., Mardanshahi, M., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2017). Impoliteness strategies based on Culpeper’s model: An analysis of gender differences between two characters in the movie Mother. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(3), 221–238.
Muhamadiyev, T. U. (2020). The impoliteness strategies finding in internet user. Актуальные Проблемы Гуманитарных и Естественных Наук, 6, 61–64.
Pramujiono, A. (2012). Representasi Kesantunan Brown dan Levinson dalam Wacana Dialog di Televisi. 10–27.
Rahardi, R. (2013). Reinterpretasi Ketidaksantunan Pragmatik. Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra, 25(1), 58–70.
Ryabova, M. (2015). Politeness strategy in everyday communication. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 90–95.
Xafizovna, R. N. (2022). Discourse Analysis of Politeness Strategies in Literary Work: Speech Acts and Politeness Strategies. Spanish Journal of Innovation and Integrity, 5, 123–133.
